Which is part of why in my ongoing space opera, I don't attempt explanations of how starships go. We just climb aboard and fly away, much like how in a mundane novel, one might get in the car and drive off, without considering the "magic" or "technology" involved. If a story hinged on why/how a hyperlight drive failed or on sugar in the gas tank, then technical explanations might be in order, but once you start down that road, you'd better have all your facts on the same page if you want your readers to continue their willing suspension of disbelief.
I had a similar argument with Kinko's some years ago. I wanted to photocopy my manuscript, which has my copyright notice on it. I had to prove that I was me before they would do it. This involved disgorging a manager from the back room, since the clerk couldn't seem to figure it out.
Rebellions happen when a sufficient number of people get squeezed beyond bearing. Which is why rebellions don't happen in countries with more or less uniformly high standards of living.
Also, rebellions that immediately lead to an improved government aren't typical. More often the rebellion results in it going from moderate repression to severe repression, followed by economic depression. THEN the cycle begins to repeat, by building back up to economic wealth, but that is likely to take a century or more.
While reading your post I had an odd thought: what if the encryption was all done at the ISP level, in some way such that the ISP itself doesn't have all the keys?? maybe you exchange keys with your ISP and they then encrypt all your traffic on your behalf, but they are not able to decrypt it without getting your other key. I may be talking nonsense here (since I don't really understand how all this works) but it occurred to me that something like this might render logs useless.
As a (mostly) Republican, I agree with you. This crap is destroying what the party was all about. It's enough to make me want to wear a bag over my head when I go to the pollbooth.:(
Last time I got a survey call from GOP central (they don't admit it, but I'm fairly sure that's who runs 'em) it was one where they could ask general questions and take notes, so I ranted for some time about these very issues. Wonder what investigatory shitlist my name is on now??:/
"Also, if I get apprehended and the case goes to trial, I want the log of every jury member, prosecutor and member of the judiciary subpoenaed and presented as evidence for the defence."
Actually, I think that's a wonderful idea, and if this nonsense does reach the enforcement stage, enterprising defense lawyers should do this as they evaluate prospective jurors.
Also, folk should read up on "jury nullification", which essentially allows a jury to throw out a verdict on the grounds that it was based on bad law.
I have a better idea. Check said data and logs for, ah, "interesting" internet activity by congresscritters. Extract any compromising data. Release it to the public. Watch 'em backpedal.
Totally freakin' agree. But I'm not replying to say that. Rather, I found your phrase "without punity" interesting, as a variant on "with impunity", but conveying a slightly different attitude:
"With impunity" implies that one *can't* be punished. Frex, "We can't control foreign terrorists. They attack us with impunity."
"Without punity" implies that one *won't* be punished. Frex, "We won't root out kiddie porners. They will abuse your children without punity."
A small difference in language, but I think the latter is indeed the social pressure that lawmakers are going for: "If you don't back this new snoop legislation, you must not WANT to punish kiddie porners!"
Just because one guy has a bazillion files, doesn't mean that everyone on the planet must have contributed to his collection. A fairly small number of file traders, especially if a few are in some country with a thriving kiddie porn industry, could easily account for a very large number of files. No need to assume that because there are a lot of files, there must be a lot of file traders.
There may BE a lot of file traders, but log-trawling starts with an assumption that the majority of people must be guilty, which is a lot of why I object to the whole log-trawling concept.
If you aren't guilty of kiddie porn, surely we can find SOMETHING you're guilty of...
Also, massive data preservation for future trawling purposes makes an assumption of guilt: You are all terrorists and kiddie-porners, so we must watch to make sure none of you makes an illegal move!!
Sooner or later, everyone breaks SOME law. Well-crafted trawling would look for every possible violation, and that makes anyone liable to be hauled in for questioning, even if they are NOT engaging in the nominal crimes-to-be-prevented (terrorism and kiddie-porn).
Someone who remembers their history better can probably expound on this, but I vaguely recall that in some countries, certain unscrupulous gov't bossmen would hire thugs to go around terrorizing honest citizens, to stifle protest against increases taxes for "services to protect you" (IOW so the bossmen could fund their own private armies, the better to suppress dissidents).
The main diff today is that our gov't bossmen don't need to hire thugs; there are sufficient thugs [terrorists] willing to do the job for free, but we still get increased taxes to support highly questionable "services to protect you", and these services are still used to suppress dissidents.
Or in the perspective of this discussion, if women with big breasts just behave normally and don't go shaking their boobs in everyone's face, no one would get too exercised about it.;)
I know someone who has silver hair, and has worn matching pastel hair tint and clothing accessories since forever -- it's so natural-looking for her, that the only time anyone remarks on it is when she doesn't bother!
Human skin is relatively delicate, much more so than horsehide. Horses have been mostly freeze-branded for decades, because freeze-branding is less destructive than hot-branding, yet still leaves a permanent mark.
The reason your blue hair is accepted and even liked is *because* you're doing it =for yourself=, and that fact is apparently evident to those around you. Making the effort to enhance yourself IS a form of professionalism, and it doubtless shows in your work, too.
If you were doing it to =shock others=, IOW to cop an attitude, that would show too, and get the opposite reaction (well, from everyone except other folks *also* out for "shock and horror").
Presonally, I like the look of a lot of different mods, but as noted it's HOW they're worn that tells me what sort of person is under 'em, and generally that's not been positive. But as body mods become more common, there are fewer people using 'em as a visual "fuck you", and more just going for a look they like.
You hit the answer in your post even tho you then shied away from it:
The real problem with body mods isn't that they happen; it's WHY people do them.
If you do it because you simply like the style and it enhances your own self, that's unlikely to be an issue.
But if it's done for shock value ("childish revolutionary behaviour") that proclaims "I won't follow the rules, and you can't make me". What sane employer wants to contend with that attitude?? maybe immature kids who haven't figured out that you can't run a business on attitude -- but we call it the dot-BOMB era for a reason, eh?
It's like how long hair, if clean and tidy, isn't a drawback, and may even be your best "look". Long hair that rats are nesting in is something else entirely.
And there are a lot of old hippies out there who don't grok the difference, then wonder why the real world doesn't take them seriously.
There are reasons why appearance means a lot in the workplace -- how you present yourself is a pretty good indication of what sort of attitude you'll have toward the job.
Some body art is truly meant to beautify, and at least here in SoCal, body art applied with tasteful restraint isn't a hiring issue (judging by the many kids with entry-level jobs and some form of body art).
But too often it's used for shock value, and that relegates itself to the fringe by its very nature:
No one wants to hire someone who very visibly proclaims "I don't care what I fuck up or who I offend, so long as I get my way and my share of the attention."
There are times when I miss my 286's amber monochrome monitor... whatever part of the screen wasn't actively text was dead-black. No "waste light" at all -- very restful to the eyes.
Turn a modern CRT up to FRY while displaying a "blank" screen like a naked DOS prompt, and you'll see how much "waste light" they actually produce.
One other thing I've noticed, is that at a visually equivalent brightness, LCDs seem harsher on my light-sensitive eyes, thus are more tiring as they produce more "visual sunburn".
Now that you mention it, I wonder if this "forced to give up the source code" thing itself might be copyright infringement.
1) The author of source code by default has copyright on that source code, as a written work.
2) Copyright cannot be just "taken", it has to be legally reassigned. As far as I recollect, there is nothing in the copyright code that says "if you create a tool that is used for infringement, you must give all rights to that tool to any infringed party who demands it."**
3) Forcing someone to legally reassign their property is normally called "extortion".
So as this thread implies, it may well be that the best defense is a good offense -- ie. going after Sony in *criminal* court. Who knows, some hungry young prosecutor might make a name for himself.
** This is exactly equivalent to window manufacturers forcing Craftsman to stop making ballpeen hammers, and forcing Craftsman to hand over all their remaining inventory, solely because the most common use for ballpeen hammers is breaking and entering.
In http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151736&cid =12731559 Dustmite says, "Trusted computing" is not about "anti-piracy", it's not about "virus protection" and it's not about "protecting copyrighted materials". These are all being spun as excuses for implementing DRM. But the real reason for this is so for the industry giants to be able to create a powerful cartel that controls the platform, deciding who is or is not "trusted" to develop software --- in other words, they're trying to never have to worry about competition again.
Occurs to me in light of your post above, that this applies just as much to linux and other non-M$ OSs -- a big vendor could put a lock on TC-linux, since small developers wouldn't stand a chance. Need to recompile your kernel? Sure!! just tell us what you need, we'll recompile it for you to TC specs, and you can then download this TC-linux update for your system -- for a suitable fee, of course. Source code included, for all the good it does you, so the the letter of the GPL is not violated (tho the spirit is raped).
You make a good point too in another post, about how either Apple goes TC, or Mac users get locked out of even more of the computing world than they already do.
Somewhere around here I have a Win2K eval CD (from a M$ roadshow) that was supposed to be timebombed, but it never did time out, and no it hasn't been hacked. ???!!
As to the nominal topic... in my observation, XP Home's performance absolutely sucks compared to XP Pro (which is much slicker even on lesser hardware). Does this hack fix that little issue too?
Back around 1977, the Moscow, Idaho city library would let anyone from anywhere borrow books, no ID required, and when you were done with the books, you just mailed them back -- and the library even provided the mailer and postage (no late fees charged, either). They told me that they lost very few books.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is part of why in my ongoing space opera, I don't attempt explanations of how starships go. We just climb aboard and fly away, much like how in a mundane novel, one might get in the car and drive off, without considering the "magic" or "technology" involved. If a story hinged on why/how a hyperlight drive failed or on sugar in the gas tank, then technical explanations might be in order, but once you start down that road, you'd better have all your facts on the same page if you want your readers to continue their willing suspension of disbelief.
I had a similar argument with Kinko's some years ago. I wanted to photocopy my manuscript, which has my copyright notice on it. I had to prove that I was me before they would do it. This involved disgorging a manager from the back room, since the clerk couldn't seem to figure it out.
Rebellions happen when a sufficient number of people get squeezed beyond bearing. Which is why rebellions don't happen in countries with more or less uniformly high standards of living.
Also, rebellions that immediately lead to an improved government aren't typical. More often the rebellion results in it going from moderate repression to severe repression, followed by economic depression. THEN the cycle begins to repeat, by building back up to economic wealth, but that is likely to take a century or more.
While reading your post I had an odd thought: what if the encryption was all done at the ISP level, in some way such that the ISP itself doesn't have all the keys?? maybe you exchange keys with your ISP and they then encrypt all your traffic on your behalf, but they are not able to decrypt it without getting your other key. I may be talking nonsense here (since I don't really understand how all this works) but it occurred to me that something like this might render logs useless.
As a (mostly) Republican, I agree with you. This crap is destroying what the party was all about. It's enough to make me want to wear a bag over my head when I go to the pollbooth. :(
:/
Last time I got a survey call from GOP central (they don't admit it, but I'm fairly sure that's who runs 'em) it was one where they could ask general questions and take notes, so I ranted for some time about these very issues. Wonder what investigatory shitlist my name is on now??
"Also, if I get apprehended and the case goes to trial, I want the log of every jury member, prosecutor and member of the judiciary subpoenaed and presented as evidence for the defence."
Actually, I think that's a wonderful idea, and if this nonsense does reach the enforcement stage, enterprising defense lawyers should do this as they evaluate prospective jurors.
Also, folk should read up on "jury nullification", which essentially allows a jury to throw out a verdict on the grounds that it was based on bad law.
I have a better idea. Check said data and logs for, ah, "interesting" internet activity by congresscritters. Extract any compromising data. Release it to the public. Watch 'em backpedal.
Totally freakin' agree. But I'm not replying to say that. Rather, I found your phrase "without punity" interesting, as a variant on "with impunity", but conveying a slightly different attitude:
"With impunity" implies that one *can't* be punished. Frex, "We can't control foreign terrorists. They attack us with impunity."
"Without punity" implies that one *won't* be punished. Frex, "We won't root out kiddie porners. They will abuse your children without punity."
A small difference in language, but I think the latter is indeed the social pressure that lawmakers are going for: "If you don't back this new snoop legislation, you must not WANT to punish kiddie porners!"
Just because one guy has a bazillion files, doesn't mean that everyone on the planet must have contributed to his collection. A fairly small number of file traders, especially if a few are in some country with a thriving kiddie porn industry, could easily account for a very large number of files. No need to assume that because there are a lot of files, there must be a lot of file traders.
There may BE a lot of file traders, but log-trawling starts with an assumption that the majority of people must be guilty, which is a lot of why I object to the whole log-trawling concept.
If you aren't guilty of kiddie porn, surely we can find SOMETHING you're guilty of...
Also, massive data preservation for future trawling purposes makes an assumption of guilt: You are all terrorists and kiddie-porners, so we must watch to make sure none of you makes an illegal move!!
Sooner or later, everyone breaks SOME law. Well-crafted trawling would look for every possible violation, and that makes anyone liable to be hauled in for questioning, even if they are NOT engaging in the nominal crimes-to-be-prevented (terrorism and kiddie-porn).
A perverse thought: The more you know about your enemy, the less you are likely to need someone else to protect you.
I don't think I like where that thought is heading. I will now go forth and have my tinfoil hat refitted; it's pinching my brain.
Someone who remembers their history better can probably expound on this, but I vaguely recall that in some countries, certain unscrupulous gov't bossmen would hire thugs to go around terrorizing honest citizens, to stifle protest against increases taxes for "services to protect you" (IOW so the bossmen could fund their own private armies, the better to suppress dissidents).
The main diff today is that our gov't bossmen don't need to hire thugs; there are sufficient thugs [terrorists] willing to do the job for free, but we still get increased taxes to support highly questionable "services to protect you", and these services are still used to suppress dissidents.
Heh heh, I know a few people like that :)
Or in the perspective of this discussion, if women with big breasts just behave normally and don't go shaking their boobs in everyone's face, no one would get too exercised about it. ;)
I know someone who has silver hair, and has worn matching pastel hair tint and clothing accessories since forever -- it's so natural-looking for her, that the only time anyone remarks on it is when she doesn't bother!
Why on earth are they still using hot-branding?
Human skin is relatively delicate, much more so than horsehide. Horses have been mostly freeze-branded for decades, because freeze-branding is less destructive than hot-branding, yet still leaves a permanent mark.
The reason your blue hair is accepted and even liked is *because* you're doing it =for yourself=, and that fact is apparently evident to those around you. Making the effort to enhance yourself IS a form of professionalism, and it doubtless shows in your work, too.
If you were doing it to =shock others=, IOW to cop an attitude, that would show too, and get the opposite reaction (well, from everyone except other folks *also* out for "shock and horror").
Presonally, I like the look of a lot of different mods, but as noted it's HOW they're worn that tells me what sort of person is under 'em, and generally that's not been positive. But as body mods become more common, there are fewer people using 'em as a visual "fuck you", and more just going for a look they like.
You hit the answer in your post even tho you then shied away from it:
The real problem with body mods isn't that they happen; it's WHY people do them.
If you do it because you simply like the style and it enhances your own self, that's unlikely to be an issue.
But if it's done for shock value ("childish revolutionary behaviour") that proclaims "I won't follow the rules, and you can't make me". What sane employer wants to contend with that attitude?? maybe immature kids who haven't figured out that you can't run a business on attitude -- but we call it the dot-BOMB era for a reason, eh?
It's like how long hair, if clean and tidy, isn't a drawback, and may even be your best "look". Long hair that rats are nesting in is something else entirely.
And there are a lot of old hippies out there who don't grok the difference, then wonder why the real world doesn't take them seriously.
There are reasons why appearance means a lot in the workplace -- how you present yourself is a pretty good indication of what sort of attitude you'll have toward the job.
Some body art is truly meant to beautify, and at least here in SoCal, body art applied with tasteful restraint isn't a hiring issue (judging by the many kids with entry-level jobs and some form of body art).
But too often it's used for shock value, and that relegates itself to the fringe by its very nature:
No one wants to hire someone who very visibly proclaims "I don't care what I fuck up or who I offend, so long as I get my way and my share of the attention."
There are times when I miss my 286's amber monochrome monitor... whatever part of the screen wasn't actively text was dead-black. No "waste light" at all -- very restful to the eyes.
Turn a modern CRT up to FRY while displaying a "blank" screen like a naked DOS prompt, and you'll see how much "waste light" they actually produce.
One other thing I've noticed, is that at a visually equivalent brightness, LCDs seem harsher on my light-sensitive eyes, thus are more tiring as they produce more "visual sunburn".
Now that you mention it, I wonder if this "forced to give up the source code" thing itself might be copyright infringement.
1) The author of source code by default has copyright on that source code, as a written work.
2) Copyright cannot be just "taken", it has to be legally reassigned. As far as I recollect, there is nothing in the copyright code that says "if you create a tool that is used for infringement, you must give all rights to that tool to any infringed party who demands it."**
3) Forcing someone to legally reassign their property is normally called "extortion".
So as this thread implies, it may well be that the best defense is a good offense -- ie. going after Sony in *criminal* court. Who knows, some hungry young prosecutor might make a name for himself.
** This is exactly equivalent to window manufacturers forcing Craftsman to stop making ballpeen hammers, and forcing Craftsman to hand over all their remaining inventory, solely because the most common use for ballpeen hammers is breaking and entering.
Occurs to me in light of your post above, that this applies just as much to linux and other non-M$ OSs -- a big vendor could put a lock on TC-linux, since small developers wouldn't stand a chance. Need to recompile your kernel? Sure!! just tell us what you need, we'll recompile it for you to TC specs, and you can then download this TC-linux update for your system -- for a suitable fee, of course. Source code included, for all the good it does you, so the the letter of the GPL is not violated (tho the spirit is raped).
You make a good point too in another post, about how either Apple goes TC, or Mac users get locked out of even more of the computing world than they already do.
Somewhere around here I have a Win2K eval CD (from a M$ roadshow) that was supposed to be timebombed, but it never did time out, and no it hasn't been hacked. ???!!
As to the nominal topic... in my observation, XP Home's performance absolutely sucks compared to XP Pro (which is much slicker even on lesser hardware). Does this hack fix that little issue too?
Great, now you tell me... here I thought it was infested with wasps. So now what do I do with all this RAID?
Back around 1977, the Moscow, Idaho city library would let anyone from anywhere borrow books, no ID required, and when you were done with the books, you just mailed them back -- and the library even provided the mailer and postage (no late fees charged, either). They told me that they lost very few books.
Too much incandescent ambient light also causes eyestrain, tho it's not as obvious because the problem is periperhal glare rather than flicker.
:)
I have rather light-sensitive eyes, so I notice these things much more than most folk. And everyone complains that my monitor is too dark, too